Proof of One

Being a "non Physics guy" would seem to limit your value to this Thread. I have no idea why. I selected the solution for the speed of gravity as near that of Infinity. Anything else would seem to defy observation and logic. If you have a concern regarding the irrational solutions of GR and calculus, take them up with Kip Thorne and Steven Weinberg. I respect their opinions concerning such matters. I'm not sure if you are "just as Correct"; however, to me you are just as ludicrous. For proof see this quote by: Lawrence M. Krauss. (More L.M.K., a person that I highly admire.) Thank you. I actually do try with great effort to the best of my ability. I often cannot let distortions lie for the public without response. I do not relish wasting my time on irrelevant drivel. As far as "PROOF" almost every post of Pulsid Theory contains much that is predictable, observable, and testable. The photon effect is a perfect example; the twelve salient subatomic particles is another; in fact all physical and mathematical manifestations, ad infinitum. Not exactly; but, I am trying.

Being a "non Physics guy" would seem to limit your value to this Thread. I have no idea why. I selected the solution for the speed of gravity as near that of Infinity. Anything else would seem to defy observation and logic. If you have a concern regarding the irrational solutions of GR and calculus, take them up with Kip Thorne and Steven Weinberg. I respect their opinions concerning such matters. I'm not sure if you are "just as Correct"; however, to me you are just as ludicrous. For proof see this quote by: Lawrence M. Krauss. (More L.M.K., a person that I highlt admire.) Thank you. I actually do try quite to the best of my ability. I often cannot let distortions lie for the public without response. I do not relish wasting my time on irrelevant drivel. As far as "PROOF" almost every post of Pulsid Theory contains much that is predictable, observable, and testable. The photon effect is a perfect example; the twelve salient subatomic particles is another; in fact all physical and mathematical manifestations, ad infinitum. Not exactly; but, I am trying.

If you are serious about arguing semantics, might I recommend a book that I've had on my shelf for 50 years and often enjoy perusing: Science and Sanity, An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics, Third Edition, a revision by Alfred Korzybski, 1933, 1948 The International Non-Aristotelian Library Publishing Company. There are many persons that find the Dictionary quite helpful in defining every day terms such as "Circular Definition" and "Math."

Thank you. I thought such was among the most powerful evidence that I could present. You might “Click” and read carefully this time. Of course, you really should be questioning Lawrence M. Krauss and his many supporters. No. You have given an opinion. You have not given an example of my logic, with which you dispute. Maybe, you don’t question my math and logic; just the presenter? Circular Definition: .........A circular definition is a description of the meaning of a lexeme that is constructed using one or more synonymous lexemes that are all defined in terms of each other. An excellent example of circular definitions are the four basic dimensions that are so misunderstood by most all physicists. Please give me just ONE example; and, I will correct it. Your saying so, especially considering your learned background, does not make it so. I do not understand why it would not be possible to test for the phuton effect; and the Europeans are mounting millions of dollars to test for the Pioneer Anomaly. What part of test do you misunderstand? Please consult any Pure Mathrmatician concerning the contrivances of numbers . . . upon which the fundamental concepts of physics ultimately rests. Not so. Or at least the issue is far from settled. There is definitely much in question regarding the speed of gravity; and many are beginning to question the concept of light and its speed; particulary as to its internal structure and its various states . . . there are four.

math n : a science (or group of related sciences) dealing with the logic of quantity and shape and arrangement [syn: mathematics, maths]

I am not certain which linked page you are referring to. Please advise and I will clarify. Pulsoid Theory is replete with mathematics and its logic. The Elliptical Constant is a simple algebraic/geometrical concept that is the scheduled topic of a seminar to be held shortly. You will be advised. You can be asured that it is the Rosetta Stone of all Knowledge and Wisdom.

I will let most of your comments stand. They are their best rebuttel. However, no one who understands a wit about theoretical physics could possible ask for the definition of a “gedunken.” Certainly, not without first Googling. You responded to my below quote, as above. Had you carefully study Pulsoid Theory, you would have noted that one of its revolutionary Pure Mathematics' concepts is that it uses no “base” or scale; such is the significance of the universal Proof of One and the Elliptical Constant. Your continuing ad hominem and pejorative comments only weaken your arguments. You would be more effective in presenting your case if you would eliminate the emotion and stick to logic.

Check with both a real world-class theoretical physicist and a world-class internet Guru. I believe you'll be surprised and impressed with what i actually do understand.

See: Observational evidence. Vague is subjective and not specific. Please give an example so that it can be clarified. I know of no terms so defined in Pulsoid Theory. Please specify one; and' date=' I will immediately clarify it in a non[b']-[/b]circular manner. I might mention that all dimensions in conventional physics are circularly defined . . . an impossibly lax situation. The photon effect is a great test for Pulsoid Theory. Also, the Pioneer anomaly is another excellent test. And, of course, the Natural integers are one of the best tests; iff such were not so, all integers must be considered as contrived . . . a sad situation. I know of no such instance. Can you cite some case in point?

Ad hominem argument is a sure sign of a weak argument. Pick a logical agument or mathematical statement to discuss.

You are quite correct. No one else in the world understands the Elliptical Constant, which is the Rosetta Stone of all wisdom, except for myself. My point is that: anyone who seeks wisdom should understand the Elliptical Constant. It is the Elliptical Constant that is at the crux of all physical manifestations; and, it offers a rationalization for the ellimation of all the metaphysics that is promulgated by Pomo elite theoretical physicists. If you do not understand the value of pure mathematics, which is an essential part of understanding the fundamental concepts of physics, I suggest that you educate yourself. That the world has difficulty undersatand something so simple as the Elliptical Constant and its significance to all knowledge is not my problem. I would think that this proves how unconcerned Google is with truth and fundamental wisdom. Google has provided the playing field; the performers must provide the content . . . wise, or otherwise. Probably not. But, your reply proves much. I am overwhelmed from many forums, and over 70 Domain Names, if I am lax in some particular area of response, Please elaborate. Much is so ludicrous on its surface that no response should be necessary. Comments often stand by themselves as their own best rebuttals. I would recommend that if you wish to be credible that you carefully study Pulsoid Theory; then pick one logical statement or mathematical expression and criticize it specifically . . . if you can. I am always looking for thoughtful input concerning "tweaking" the theory so that others can more easily understand it. Your input could be invaluable.

...

I know world-class theoretical physicists, mathematicians, scientific historians, and logicians. I have found none on this forum to this point . . . mostly just run-of-the-mill pedants with closed minds and large egos. Who can you suggest that I have met as yet on your staff that is otherwise? If I found it scary, I would not have dedicated my life to theoretical physics after it almost cost me my life some 50 years ago. This is a walk in the park in comparison. If you want scary, consult Giordano Bruno, Voltaire, etc. Comparatvely, I doubt if you understand "scary."

I guess with my 70 plus, often high ranking domains (Google frequently changes the algorithm); I have learned nothing since before Google. In that case, your advice is duly noted. And, yes, often my postings at night, on this forum, are found at Google the next morning, Google watches me so closely that at PhysicsForums, from which I am totally banned, they use my original thoughts to promote the PhysicsForum website. I find it quite ironic that the traffic that is so directed there (And as is also directed to this site) discovers that my posting name on every post has a thick black line drawn through it. My viewers generally break all the forum records wherever I go. Probably thanks to Google and Yahoo. For some unknown reason Google follows me. I note that some listings of foreign forums drop me from the top spots, occasionally; only to put me back on top in several days. Try Googling Elliptical Constant, etc.

Wow. What an impressive response. The manner of the displayed intellect is truly amazing. As a reminder, I am printing the prior post, from which the embedded quotes herein were derived, from a high resolution Epson photo printer, on high quality paper, framing it under glass, and hanging it above my computer. First thing tomorrow, I will Google to see its ranking to determine if the world is as impressed as I.

Amazing reply, when you consider what you have squandered through total ignorance of theoretical physics. And, the effort that I expended to alleviate that sad situation. I am not the one that you have denigrated. A closed mind is a dangerous threat to everyone; most of all, to . . . its possessor. A small mind seldom enlarges because it is not open to new ideas. Arguing in anger, with only emotion, is losing the high ground. If mistaken, concede. Stop the loss, before all’s gone, because of . . . anger.

If you understand anything about the geometry of the internal structure of light; you would understand why the limits of light's speed run the gamut from motionlessness to infinite; and you would also understand why that speed can not be constant. Light is much as Cosmic Inertia; on the anthropoidal scale' date=' the variations are too minuscule to notice. If you were a galaxy you would be aware that Cosmic Inertia is a force only different from gravity as to its source. Think of light as an ellipsoidal structure (subject to Triquametric motion, of course) that is drawn out to almost a straight line (Lines and circles are special ellipses). Heuristically, the variance from a straight line is a relative indication of the speed variance. Said ellipsoid is in a state of hyper-relativistic (superluminal), complex oscillation. Incidently, this relationship of the ellipse to light's three types of sinusoidal oscillations is what Einstein sought most of his adult life as the key to relating SR and GR.

Thanks for tip. Where? Anything that brings accomplished theoretical physicists and pure mathematicians to the dialogue would be welcome relief.

I will stand by my prior statements, which you have completely misconstrued, herein. Let's get on-topic with specific logic and math that applies to the dialogue